DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on June 5, 2026 cancelled no claims. Claims 1, 17, and 32-33 were amended and no claims 34-35 were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-21, 23-26, 30, and 32-35.
Claim Objections
The amendment filed on June 5, 2026 has overcome the objections to claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-21, 23-26, 30, and 32-35. Thus, the objection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed on June 5, 2026 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 17-21 associated with the second claimed in-frame shopping environment, raised in the office action dated January 5, 2026. Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-21, 23-26, 30, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 32, and 33 have been amended to recite: rendering and playing a video from the frame widget, based on a user action, wherein the video is from the at least one short-form video that was chosen, and wherein the frame widget is configured to, responsive to another user action, display an in-frame shopping environment as an overlay while the video continues to play. The examiner has been unable to find support for these limitation in the applicant’s specification.
First, by using the terms “rendering and playing” requires that both a step of rendering and a step of playing be performed. The applicant’s specification does not define the terms “render”, “rendering”, “play” and/or “playing”. Thus, the standard dictionary definition applies. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary the term rendering can mean “to cause (something, such as an image or text) to display (as on a screen)” or “to execute the motions of” and the term rending can mean “a function of an electronic device that causes a recording to play”. Given these definitions, if one were to use the second definition of rendering (i.e., to execute the motion of) a video, then the claimed rendering and playing would require that the video be played twice and/or in two different locations for every single user action on the video. The examiner cannot find support for either of these interpretations in the applicant’s disclosure. As such, these two different steps (i.e., a step of rendering the video and a step of playing the video) would not be performed. If the applicant’s intent is that rendering mean populating the video for display, then the applicant’s specification must support the user performing an action of some type and, in response to said action, the video is displayed within the frame widget and then automatically plays the video. There is no direct or inherent support in the applicant’s specification for these two different steps (i.e., both rendering and displaying) to occur after a user performs a single action.
Second, the phrase “rendering and playing a video from the frame widget” is so broad that it does not require that the video be rendered or played within the frame widget. For example, the claimed rendering and playing a video from the frame widget would encompass rendering and displaying the video on a video player of the website and/or a video player loaded on the user device. However, the applicant’s disclosure does not support rendering and playing the video in such manners. According to the applicant’s disclosure, in at least paragraphs 11, 27-28, 31, 40-41, 45, 53-55, and 60-61, the video is already rendered (i.e., populated for display) when a user performs an action on the video and the video must be played “within” the frame widget for the products and/or overlays to be displayed. Therefore, the applicant’s disclosure supports rendered (i.e., populated for display) the video within the frame widget, receiving a user action associated with the displayed video, and then, based on the user action, playing the video within the frame widget. However, there is clearly no support for playing, in response to the user action, the video on a video player of the website and/or a video player loaded on the user device.
Third, as per the “Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications” issued on January 21, 2011 and MPEP 2161.01, the first paragraph of § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. The written description requirement of § 112(a) applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Independent claims 1, 32, and 33, as currently amended, are recited using functional claim language and encompass terms and/or phrases, such as “based on a user action” and “responsive to another user action”, that encompass a broad genus of user actions. The examiner has been unable to find support for such a broad genus of user actions in the applicant’s disclosure. As claims the rendering and playing could occur based on any type of user action. Likewise, the frame widget would be configured to display the in-frame shopping environment based on any second type of user action. Thus, there must be a sufficient number of species of user actions which cause the playing of the video within the frame widget to prove that the applicant had invented an invention which can perform the playing based on any user action. Likewise, there must be a sufficient number of species of user actions which cause the displaying of the in-frame shopping environment to prove that the applicant had invented an invention which can perform the displaying of the in-frame shopping environment based on any second user action, to prove that the applicant possessed such a genus of invention. While the applicant does have support for playing the video based on a number of species of interactions with video such as tapping on the video, clicking the video, mousing over the video, hovering a cursor over the video, etc., all of such actions require a user action with the video itself. Thus, these species only support an invention in which user actions with the displayed video can cause it to play. This is insufficient to prove that the applicant invented a genus of invention in which a user can perform any action, including actions that do not require an interaction with the video, and this will cause the video to play. Likewise, the applicant’s specification has a number species of the user performing “another user action” on an overlay on the video such as an image of a product, a call-to-action overlay, a product information overlay, a coupon overlay, etc., which cause the display of the in-frame shopping environment, wherein the interaction with the overlay includes tapping on the overlay, clicking the overlay, mousing over the overlay, hovering a cursor over the overlay, etc. However, each of these species requires that an overlay on the video be display and that the user interact with the overlay. This is insufficient to prove that the applicant invented a genus of invention in which a user can perform “another user action”, including actions that do not require an interaction with the overlay, and this will cause the video to play. As such, it is clear that the applicant’s specification does not describe the claimed genus in a manner which proves, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the inventor actually invented the claimed genus of invention.
Finally, based on the applicant’s disclosure, the only way in which “another user action” results in the displaying of the in-frame shopping environment is if “the another user action” is performed on an overlay displayed on the video. However, the claim neither requires that such an overlay on the video be displayed, nor that the “another user action” is performed on the overlay for the “in-frame shopping environment to be displayed. As made clear by at least figures 4-7 of the applicant’s disclosure, as well as paragraphs 11 and 50-55 of the applicant’s specification, the applicant’s invention first displays an overlay such as an image of a product, a call-to-action overlay, a product information overlay, a coupon overlay, etc., then the user must interact with the overlay for the in-frame shopping environment to be displayed. As such, the applicant’s disclosure does not have support for displaying the in-frame shopping environment in the manner claimed.
Therefore, it is clear that claims 1, 32, and 33, as currently amended, fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-21, 23-26, 30 and 34-35 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-21, 23-26, 30, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 32, and 33 have been amended to recite: rendering a video from the frame widget, based on a user action, wherein the video is from the at least one short-form video that was chosen, and wherein the frame widget is configured to, responsive to another user action, display an in-frame shopping environment as an overlay while the video continues to play. It is impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the intended metes and bounds of this limitation. As currently claimed, the invention inserts a frame widget into the webpage, and populates the frame widget with a short-form video along with other videos. There is no indication where this frame widget comes from or how the applicant’s invention obtained the frame widget so that it could be inserted and populated. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention is that this frame widget could be obtained in any manner including receiving the frame widget from a computer outside the scope of the applicant’s invention. When the applicant’s invention merely inserts and populates a frame widget received from a device outside the scope of the applicant’s invention, the functionality of the frame widget would be non-functional descriptive material that does not limit the scope of the claimed invention. Thus, it is impossible to tell whether or not the applicant intends the phrase “and wherein the frame widget is configured to, responsive to another user action, display an in-frame shopping environment as an overlay while the video continues to play” to limit the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art might first expect the phrase “and wherein the frame widget is configured to, responsive to another user action, display an in-frame shopping environment as an overlay while the video continues to play” to be nonfunctional descriptive material describe a functionality that was already present in the frame widget when it was received. Alternatively, one or ordinary skill in the art might interpret the limitation as an active step of configuring which is done by the claimed invention, thereby requiring this functionality to be within the scope of the applicant’s invention. Since, these two interpretations result in an invention with significantly different scope, the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-21, 23-26, 30 and 34-35 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 17 depends from claim 1 and recites “an in-frame shopping environment. Claims 18-21 depend from claim 17 and each recite “where the shopping environment”. However, claim 1, as currently amended recites “an in-frame shopping environment”. As such, it is impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether the applicant intends for the claimed “an in-frame shopping environment” of claim 17 to be a new in-frame shopping environment that is different from the in-frame shopping environment of claim 1 or whether claim 17 was intended to have a status identifier of Currently Amended and the previously recited “an in-frame shopping environment” amended to recite “the in-frame shopping environment”. Given, the current status identifier of Original, the examiner would expect the intend of claim 17 is that it refer to a new and different in-frame shopping environment. However, the applicant’s disclosure does not support a video that can be used to render two different in-frame shopping environments. Additionally, the phrase “the shopping environment” found in claims 18-21 lacks proper antecedent basis. As currently amended the phrase “the shopping environment” could have antecedent basis to the claimed “an in-frame shopping environment” of claim 1 or antecedent basis to the claimed “an in-frame shopping environment” of claim 17. It would be impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art which “in-frame shopping environment” the applicant intends each of the claimed “the shopping environment” to have antecedent basis to. As such, claims 17-21 are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-21, 23-26, 30, and 32-35 are directed to a method, a computer program product, and a system which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-21, 23-26, 30, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim(s) 1, 32, and 33 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Examiner’s note: For the purpose of analyzing claims under 35 USC 101 claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation. According to the claims, the short-form video is accessed from a library of short-form videos. The claim does not require the invention to create the short form video. Additionally, the claim does not require that the short-form video be modified in any way. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is that the short-form video and its functionality are outside the scope of the applicant’s invention. Likewise, the applicant’s invention inserts and populates the frame widget, but provides no indication of where said frame widget comes from. As detailed in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is that the applicant’s invention receives this frame widget from another computer outside the scope of the applicant’s invention. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is that the frame widget and its functionality are outside the scope of the applicant’s invention.)
accessing a library of short-form videos;
evaluating a webpage for products displayed or represented through the webpage within an online retail environment, wherein evaluating the webpage includes detecting and evaluating keywords, wherein the detecting of keywords includes performing a semantic analysis on the webpage to discover semantically related terms;
identifying, based on the evaluating, one or more products on the webpage;
choosing, based on the identifying, at least one short-form video from the library of short-form videos to include with the webpage;
inserting a frame widget into the webpage, wherein placement of the frame widget in the webpage is based on the evaluating;
populating the frame widget with the at least one short-form video that was chosen along with other videos; and
rendering and playing a video from the frame widget, based on a user action, wherein the video is from the at least one short-form video that was chosen, and wherein the frame widget is configured to, responsive to another user action, display an in-frame shopping environment as an overlay while the video continues to play.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely advertising, marketing, or sales related activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e., “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of: one or more processors attached to a memory which stores instructions executed by the processor, wherein the instructions include a machine learning model for performing latent semantic indexing (general-purpose computer with generic computer component executing software).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
accessing a library of short-form videos (transmitting and/or receiving data);
populating the frame widget with the at least one short-form video that was chosen along with other videos (transmitting and/or displaying data); and
rendering a video from the frame widget, based on a user action, wherein the video is from the at least one short-form video that was chosen, and wherein the frame widget is configured to, responsive to another user action, display an in-frame shopping environment as an overlay while the video continues to play (transmitting and/or displaying data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and/or one or more generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e., “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using one or more processors attached to a memory which stores instructions executed by the processor, wherein the instructions include a machine learning model for performing latent semantic indexing to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and/or one or more generic computer components.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computers and/or one or more generic computer components (as evidenced from Figure 10 and paragraph 63 and 68-75 of the applicant’s specification; Wei et al., LDA-Based Document Models for Ad-hoc Retrieval, August 2006, https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/ 10.1145/1148170.1148204, page 1-9 which discloses on page 2, column 2, lines 2-3 that Latent Semantic Indexing was well-known by at least August of 2006; and the Recentive Analytics Decision which discloses that generic machine learning models are merely software executing on a computer which is insufficient of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and insufficient to be considered significantly more under Step 2b); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
accessing a library of short-form videos (transmitting and/or receiving data);
populating the frame widget with the at least one short-form video that was chosen along with other videos (transmitting and/or displaying data); and
rendering a video from the frame widget, based on a user action, wherein the video is from the at least one short-form video that was chosen, and wherein the frame widget is configured to, responsive to another user action, display an in-frame shopping environment as an overlay while the video continues to play (transmitting and/or displaying data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-21, 23-26, 30, and 34-35 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the choosing of the at least one short-form video from the library which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 2-3); further limiting the short-form videos which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 4); further limiting the evaluating the webpage which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 5-6); further limiting the populating by adding an additional step of performing auctioning which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 8-11); further limiting the populating which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 12); further limiting the rendering of the video which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 14-15 and 17-21); further limiting frame widget which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 16 and 30); adding an additional step of enabling a virtual purchase cart; enabling selection of a product to add to the cart; and displaying the product which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 23-25); adding an additional step of identifying the user which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 26); adding an additional step of finalizing purchase of the product using a batch order process which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 34-35), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-21, 23-26, 30, and 32-35 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-21, 23-26, 30, and 32-35 contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejections, the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, and the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner has found prior art (see Biniak et al.: 2008/0082922; Jones et al.: 2018/0025405; Henkin et al.: 2010/0138452; and Taylor et al.: 10/021458) that discloses a computer-implemented method, a computer program product and a computer system for video manipulation comprising:
a server with one or more processors and a memory executing instructions to perform the steps of:
accessing a library of short-form videos;
evaluating a webpage for products displayed or represented through the webpage within an online retail environment;
identifying, based on the evaluating, one or more products on the webpage, wherein evaluating the webpage includes detecting and evaluating keywords, wherein the detecting of keywords includes performing Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) on the webpage;
choosing, based on the identifying, at least one short-form video from the library of short-form videos to include with the webpage;
generating a frame widget programmed to: play the at least one short-form video in response to a user interaction and display overlays on the at least one short-form video while the at least one short-form video is playing;
inserting the frame widget into the webpage, wherein placement of the frame widget in the webpage is based on the evaluating;
populating the frame widget with the at least one short-form video that was chosen along with other videos; and
receiving, by the frame widget, a first user action, wherein the first user action is an indication to render (play) the at least one short-form video;
playing, by the frame widget, the at least one short-form video in response to receiving the first user action;
displaying, by the frame widget, an overlay of a product on the video being rendered (played), wherein the overlay is selectable by the user;
receiving, by the server and from the frame widget, a second user action, wherein the second user action is a selection of the overlay;
transmitting, by the server and to the frame widget an in-frame shopping environment overlay;
displaying, by the frame widget, the in-frame shopping environment overlay while the video continues to be played.
In the invention of Biniak, Jones, Henkin, and Taylor the frame widget receives the initial overlays from the server and plays them in response to the first user action. Upon receipt of the second user action, the server transmits the in-frame shopping environment overlay to the frame widget, and the frame widget displays the in-frame shopping environment overlay on the short-form video while the video continues to be rendered.
Thus, the prior art of Biniak, Jones, Henkin, and Taylor does not disclose: the initial rendering and playing of the video based on the initial user action, and then displaying, responsive to another user action, the in-frame shopping environment as an overlay while the video continues to play as currently claimed. (Examiner’s note: The applicant’s specification makes a distinction between a call-to-action overlay (e.g., product overlay, coupon overlay, etc.,) and an in-frame shopping environment overlay, in that an in-frame shopping environment overlay is only displayed after a user interaction occurs on a call-to-action overlay. Thus, the call-to-action overlay cannot be interpreted as an in-frame shopping environment.).
It would not have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention Biniak, Jones, Henkin, and Taylor with an additional prior art that discloses the missing limitation without the use of impermissible hindsight by using the applicant’s claim as a roadmap.
Thus, claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-21, 23-26, 30, and 32-35 contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejections, the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, and the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s argues that the claim amendment overcomes the 35 USC 112(a) rejections of the claims. The examiner disagrees. As detailed in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, the claims as amended do not overcome the rejections. For example, the applicant’s disclosure does not have support for both rendering and displaying the video from the frame widget, based on a user action. Instead, it supports displaying an image of a video, such as a thumbnail image of the video, within the frame widget, a user action occurring with the image, and playing the video within the frame widget based on the user action. As such, the claims would need to be amended to require that an image of the video is displayed within the frame widget, the user interaction must be on the image displayed in the frame widget, and the video must be displayed in the frame widget for there to be support in the applicant’s disclosure , Likewise, the applicant’s disclosure does not have support for “wherein the frame widget is configured to, responsive to another user action, display an in-frame shopping environment. Instead, the disclosure supports displaying an overlay, such as a call-to-action overlay on the video within the frame widget as the video plays, receiving new user action on the overlay, and displaying, based on a new user interaction on the overlay, an in-frame shopping environment within the frame widget as an overlay while the video continues to plays. As currently amended the “another user interaction” could by any kind of user action such as a user action on the video, a user action on the web page, or even a user action within some other application on the user device and the in-frame shopping environment would be displayed as an overlay. There is no support for the applicant’s invention displaying the in-frame shopping environment based on such another user actions. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the claim amendment does not overcome the 112(a) rejections. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant’s arguments with regards to the claim amendment overcoming the 112(b) rejections of the claims is not convincing. It is true that the the claim has been amended to indicate that the frame widget includes the functionality of displaying the in-frame shopping environment. This means that, as currently claimed, the rendering and playing of the video from the frame widget is performed by the computer that executes the code and the displaying of the in-frame shopping environment is done by the frame widget. However, it is still unclear as to whether the applicant intends the frame widget and its functionality to be within the scope of the claimed invention. One interpretation of the claims as currently amended is that the frame widget is received from a computer outside the scope of the applicant’s invention, wherein the frame widget was configured in the claimed manner when it was received. This interpretation would mean the frame widget and its functionality is non-functional descriptive material that does not limit the scope of the invention. Another interpretation could be that the applicant intends for the invention performs some type of configuring step on the frame widget received from the other computer which allows the frame widget to perform in the claimed manner. This interpretation would mean that the functionality added to the frame widget after it was received is within the scope of the applicant’s invention. Since, these two interpretations result in different inventions with vastly different scope the claims, as amended, are still properly rejected under 112(b) for being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the claims as amended impart specific functionality to the frame widget and, as such, the frame widget cannot be considered part of the abstract idea. The applicant asserts that the claims as currently amended require that the frame widget be considered an additional element of the claims and that said frame widget is an improved graphical user interface that transforms the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or is significantly more under Step 2b. The examiner disagrees. As detail in the 35 USC 101 rejection above, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims is that the applicant’s invention received the frame widget which already has the claimed functionality from a computing device outside the scope of the applicant’s invention. Thus, using the BRI of the claim, the frame widget and its functionality cannot be considered an “additional element” of the claimed invention. Therefore, the frame widget and its functionality are still properly considered as part of the abstract idea itself. Since, the frame widget and its functionality are part of the abstract idea itself, they are incapable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or incapable of being considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
(Examiner’s note: If the applicant wants to ensure that the frame widget and its functionality are within the scope of the claimed invention, the system claim could be amended to comprise the frame widget. The method and computer program product claims could be amended to positively recite: generating, by a computer, a frame widget configure to display, in response to receiving an overlay user interaction, an in-frame shopping environment as an overlay over a short-form video as it continues to play; inserting, by the computer, the frame widget…; populating, by the computer, the frame widget…; displaying, by the computer, the frame widget with the populated short-form video along with other videos; receiving, by the computer, a short-form video user interaction; playing, by the computer and in response to the short-form video interaction, the short-form video within the frame widget; displaying, by the computer, a call-to-action overlay on the short-form video as the short-form video continues to play; receiving, by the frame widget, the overlay user interaction; and displaying, by the frame widget, the in-frame shopping environment as an overlay while the short-form video continues to play. If the applicant’s specification has support for the computer doing the claimed steps attributable to the computer, as well as the claimed steps attributable to the frame widget, then such an amendment would bring both the computer and frame widget with the scope of the claimed method and computer program product and result in both being considered “additional elements” of the invention.)
The applicant argues that maintain continuous video playback while dynamically rendering an interactive shopping overly within the same frame is neither a mental process, nor a generic computer function. The examiner notes that these argument are not convincing. The instant claims have been rejected as reciting an abstract idea the falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” bucket. The examiner has given no indication that the claims recite a “Mental Process”. As such, it is immaterial whether maintaining continuous video playback while dynamically rendering an interactive shopping overly within the same frame is a mental process. Likewise, the maintaining continuous video playback while dynamically rendering an interactive shopping overly within the same frame is part of the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer. As such, any improvement associated with maintaining continuous video playback while dynamically rendering an interactive shopping overly within the same frame is an improvement to the abstract idea itself which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. MPEP 2106 prevents such improvements from being considered an improvement in technology and indicates that such improvements are incapable of overcoming a 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or Step 2b (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”). As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant asserts that the August 2025 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Update indicates that claims reciting specific programmed UI behavior implemented in a particular machine are not abstract under Step 2a, Prong 1. The examiner strongly disagrees. There is absolutely no such indication in the August 2025 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Update. First, the August 2025 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Update did not change any part of the analysis required by MPEP 2106. Instead, the August 2025 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Update was a reminder of the manner in which MPEP 2106 requires a 101 analysis to be performed. According to MPEP 2106, Step 2a, Prong 1 requires an examiner to determine whether a claim or any portion thereof recites an abstract idea that falls within the enumerated categories of abstract ideas. If any portion of the claim falls within one of said enumerated categories, the it recites and abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1. The “additional elements” then removed from the abstract idea and considered under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or Step 2b. While it is true that a graphical user interface within the scope of claimed invention should not be considered part of the identified “abstract idea”, and is properly considered as an “additional element” of the claimed invention, the treatment of such graphical user interfaces was never mentioned in the August 2025 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Update. Instead, the August 2025 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Update merely reminded examiners to only include those elements of the claim which recite (i.e., set forth or describe) an abstract idea as part of the abstract idea itself and that any elements within the scope of the claimed invention which are not part of the abstract idea itself must be analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2a, Prong 2 and Step 2b. In the instant case the frame widget and its functionality are not within the scope of the claimed invention and, as such, cannot be considered “additional elements” of the claimed invention. As such, the frame widget and its functionality are incapable of being considered “additional elements” of the claimed invention which can transform the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and incapable of being considered “additional elements” of the claimed invention which can be significantly more under Step 2b. Until such elements are brought within the scope of the claimed invention, they are properly considered part of the abstract idea itself. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eddings et al. (8,407,665) which discloses customizing webpages based on an automated contextual understanding of the content of the Web page, profile-based information derived from personal data supplied by, or inferred from actions by, the user visiting the Website, location-targeted information (e.g., inferred by the Website visitor's current geography), etc.;
Locker et al. (2023/0031877) which discloses contextually analyzing a webpage, identifying images in the webpage and modifying the webpage to include a recommendation function;
Ramer et al. (2009/0234745) discloses perform auctioning when providing a ranked list of advertisement, wherein the auction bid is based on a position of the advertisement in the ranked list and based on a keyword on the webpage or relevance of the video to the webpage content, and wherein the auction bid is based on use of a coupon or other promotion;
Covert et al. (2013/0110613) discloses video advertisements which are video coupons that first describe at least one of a product or service offered and then displays a coupon as part of the trailing end portion of the video offering
Chow (2009/0259535) discloses a shopping environment with the ability for a user to clip coupons; and
Watanabe et al. (2019/0116181) discloses a website identifying a user using a hash value of a user identifier (e.g., identification tag).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Spar Ilana can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights